Bible Commentaries

Chapter24.
Divorce

"And He arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judæa by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort unto Him again; and, as He was wont, He taught them again. And the Pharisees came to Him, and asked Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting Him. And He answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the house His disciples asked Him again of the same matter. And He saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery."— Mark 10:1-12.

Bridging a Gap.

Some interval of time elapsed between the conversation recorded in the last chapter and the conversation we are now to consider. During that interval many things had happened. If we want to "fill in" this gap which Mark leaves in his story, we must turn to Luke and John. From a comparison of these other Gospels we find that in the meantime Jesus had sent out the seventy disciples; He had gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of Pentecost; He had retired from Jerusalem to Perea; He had again gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of Dedication; and once again, to avoid the murderous plots of the Jews, had gone away beyond Jordan, to the place where John was at the first baptising. It is probably just at this point that the question as to divorce is to be placed.

The Causes of the Question.

From John's account it is clear that the preaching of Jesus beyond Jordan was attended by more than ordinary success. It was probably, as Mr. David Smith suggests, the results of our Lord's preaching that stirred His enemies once again to activity. Perhaps they had flattered themselves that, when they had driven Him out of Jerusalem, they were finally rid of Him. But when they heard that the crowds were resorting to Him beyond Jordan, and that people in numbers were believing on Him, they were greatly perturbed, and it was not long before certain emissaries of the Pharisees appeared on the scene, with the deliberate object of thwarting Him in His work. The method they adopted was that of bringing to Christ a captious question, a question which would put Him on the horns of a dilemma, and, however He might answer it, might impair and imperil His authority. The question chosen dealt with divorce. "Is it lawful for a Mark 10:6-8). The union of man and woman in marriage is so profound and vital, that husband and wife cease, as it were, to be two separate and distinct individualities, and become so merged together that they constitute one unit of being. Each becomes part of the very existence of the other, "so that they are no longer twain, but one flesh," "the two-celled heart beating with one full stroke." This union, down to the very foundations of being, and instituted by God, is not to be at the mercy of man's whims and caprices. Ideally and essentially, marriage is a permanent and indissoluble relation. "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" ( Mark 10:9).

—Reaffirmed.

To those who heard it, this was a staggering reply. What, no relief from the marriage bond, even in case of insupportable incompatibilities? The disciples themselves were bewildered, and, when they got into the house, pressed Jesus further upon the point. They said (as Matthew tells us) that if the bond of marriage was an indissoluble bond, then it were better not to marry at all. But their questions and protests only evoke from our Lord another affirmation of the essential permanence and indissolubleness of the marriage relation. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery" ( Mark 10:11-12). The wanton breach of this holy bond, the putting away of wife or husband for this and that reason, was, our Lord said, a violation of the seventh commandment. No "incompatibilities" suffice to dissolve this union. There ought to be no "incompatibilities." For marriage is not to be engaged in rashly, thoughtlessly or lightly, but advisedly, reverently, and in the fear of God. There is only one thing, according to our Lord's teaching, that can break the marriage bond, and that is the awful sin that poisons married life at its source. Short of that, marriage is indissoluble. "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Christ as Defender of the Weak.

Here, apart from the main issue, let us remark how our Lord appears here as the defender of the weak. In the ancient world, no one suffered crueller wrong and indignity than woman. And here our Lord appears as the defender of woman and the lifter up of her head. Woman, according to our Lord's teaching, is not man's slave or toy, to be dismissed and cast off at the merest whim and caprice; she is man's complement and counterpart; and matrimony is a holy estate, in which woman has equal rights with man. The emancipation of womankind began with a declaration like that which is contained in these verses. The honour, respect, and chivalrous deference paid to woman to-day she owes chiefly if not entirely to the influence of Jesus.

—And of the Family.

Our Lord appears here also as the defender of the family. In the long run the life of the nation, yes, and the prosperity of the kingdom, depend upon the life of the family. And the life of the family, again, depends upon the sacredness and sanctity of marriage. It needs no pointing out from me that laxity of marriage law inflicts irreparable injury upon family life. I think sometimes of what happens to the children when fathers and mothers divorce one another, as they do in some civilised countries to-day, for all sorts of flimsy and ridiculous reasons. What becomes of the children? And with what kind of a conception of morality are they likely to grow up? In speaking as He did, our Lord was safeguarding the interests of the children, defending the family, preserving the home, and so securing the very foundations on which the fabric of society rests.

A Present-day Need.

No subject needs to be more plainly and emphatically spoken about in our day than that of marriage. There is a growing tendency towards laxity in views about it. Divorces become ever more and more numerous. Legislatures are inclined to multiply the reasons for which relief from the marriage-bond can be obtained. Writers are busy making attacks upon the whole system of marriage. Novelists—and women novelists amongst the most prominent—advocate temporary alliances, or sing the praises of a promiscuous love which is nothing but gross and naked animalism. A certain school of social reformers repudiate marriage altogether. These are serious and menacing signs. You threaten the very life of the state when you relax the ties of marriage and weaken the family bond. There is nothing we want more than a new grasp of our Lord's teaching—that there is but one moral law, and that law the same for man and woman. The sacredness of marriage ought to be a subject upon which we have no doubts. On this point it is well not to have an open, but a closed and settled, mind. Let no specious and plausible talk about "unhappy marriages" unsettle that conviction. The remedy for "unhappy marriage" is not greater facility of divorce, but increased thought and seriousness in the contraction of marriage. Laxity in this will mean rottenness sweeping in like a flood. It is ours to maintain and assert the more austere and exacting view of Christ. Marriage is an ordinance of God. It is meant for the perfecting of character. It is essentially and ideally permanent and indissoluble. "What... God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

Chapter25.
Christ and the Children

"And they brought young children to Him, that He should touch them: and His disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, He was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily1say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And He took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them."— Mark 10:13-16.

The Defence of the Child.

There is no hint in the narrative as to the exact time or place where this blessing of the children occurred. We are not to conclude that, because it follows upon the account of our Lord's conversation with the Pharisees about divorce, it must have happened on the same day or about the same time. All that we can say about it Mark 10:14).

—And a Defence of the Family.

And here too He appears as the defender of the family. In the last paragraph He maintains the rights of the wife. In this paragraph He maintains the right of the child. Now there are three parties to the family—husband, wife, child. The place of the husband was sufficiently safeguarded by the customs and laws of ancient society. But the wife was subjected to cruel wrong, and the child was often the subject of shameful neglect. By His teaching on divorce our Lord gave the wife her proper place in the family. By His love for the children He redeemed childhood from neglect, and made the little ones the object of loving regard and care. And so our Lord defended and safeguarded family life. The emphasis our Lord laid upon the family deserves to be called "extraordinary," says a noted American professor. Not only did He always express sympathy with domestic life in all its phases; not only did He display great reverence for women and tenderness for children; not only did He adopt the terminology of the family to express the relations between Himself and His followers, and even the relations between man and God, but the family was the only institution upon which Jesus laid down any specific legislation.

The Family the Social Unit.

All this emphasis upon the importance of the family arose from our Lord's sense of the vast part the family plays in the development of human character. To Him, the family was the social unit, and it was through the regenerated family that the regeneration of the world was to be effected. We need to learn of our Lord in all this. The home is the strategic point. Decay of family life spells ruin to the nation, and a stop to the progress of the Kingdom of God. Therefore we must do all we can to defend and safeguard it, to defend it against the menace to its integrity by the slackening of the marriage-tie, to defend it against the menace to its happiness and usefulness, from the neglect of the little child. The sanctified family is a pledge and promise of the redeemed world.

The Whole Duty of Parents.

And now, turning to the story itself, let us notice the part the parents played in this incident. "And they brought unto Him little children, that He should touch them" ( Mark 10:13). There can be no doubt who the "they" refer to, viz, the parents of the children. I say "parents" deliberately, because fathers as well as mothers were evidently concerned in this. The fathers of these children have hardly had fair play at our hands. I have seen many pictures of this incident, but I cannot remember one which depicts a father as taking any part in it. But the narrative makes it plain that there were fathers as well as mothers present, for the participle in the Greek is in the masculine. Here, then, we have fathers and mothers bringing their children to Jesus, children young enough to be taken up in His arms. And the word which is translated simply "brought" in our version really means "offered." It is the word used of the "offering" of gold and frankincense and myrrh by the wise men to the infant Jesus. These fathers and mothers "offered" their little children to Christ. It was a solemn act of dedication and consecration. They "offered" little children to Him.

—Duty where Unexpected.

And it was the parents of Perea who did this. Now Perea, the geographers tell us, was part pagan, as well as part Jewish. I have no doubt its people were despised and scorned by the proud Jews of Jerusalem. But some at least of the parents of Perea had sufficient insight to recognise that to be blessed of Christ would be the choicest gift that could fall to the lot of their children. It is worth noticing how the finest tribute to Christ, the finest illustrations of faith and love, occur amongst pagan and half-pagan people. It was the faith of the centurion that made Jesus marvel at its strength; it was in a Syro-Phenician woman He found a persistent love that would not be denied; it was in Samaria He met with the swiftest and most general response to His preaching; and now amongst those half-pagan people of Perea parents pay Him the finest tribute all through His career—they "offered" their children to Him, that He might touch them. Here in parable we have the whole duty of parents—to offer their children to the Lord; to consecrate them in their very infancy to Christ, to do as Hannah did with young Samuel, to grant them to the Lord all the days of their life.

—A Duty often Neglected.

It is just here, in this critical and all-important duty, that many fond and loving parents fail. They take every care of their children's health and education and manners. They do their level best to further their worldly success. But many of them take little account of their children's souls. And yet that is really the supreme duty. You remember Angel Charity's cross-examination of Christian. It all gathered round this one point. Here are some of her questions. "Why did you not bring your children along with you? Did you pray to God that He would bless your counsel to them? Did you tell them of your own sorrow and fear of destruction? Did you not by your vain life damp all that you by words used by way of persuasion to bring them away with you?" Charity never asked Christian what he had done to promote his children's worldly prosperity. The crucial thing was, what he had done for their souls. We, to whom the charge of children has been given, may well take this to heart. If we were half as anxious to offer our children to the Lord as we are to educate them well, to place them well, to marry them well, there would be a different story to tell about some of our homes than there is at present; and the world would be a far sweeter and better place than it is. First things first; and the first duty of a parent to his child is this—to offer him to the Lord.

The Hindering Disciples.


—Their Mistake.

"They brought unto Him little children, that He should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them." And this in spite of the stern and solemn warning about putting a stumbling-block in the way of a little one. Why did they rebuke the parents? Why did they try to hinder them from coming to Christ? Out of concern, says Dr. Salmond, for the Master's dignity and ease. Because, says Professor Warfield, the children did not need healing, and could not receive instruction. The disciples thought of Jesus as a Teacher sent from God, and a Healer. As these little children had no sickness or disease, and were too young to profit by the Lord's teaching, they thought it was putting Him to needless toil and trouble on their behalf for His notice. So they rebuked those that brought them, and rather roughly tried to thrust them away.

—And Ours.

You may wonder that any men, and especially these men, could so misinterpret and misunderstand the Christ. But let us not be too hard upon them? Do we not sometimes commit the same tragic mistake? Are not some tempted to deny that the child can receive the Spirit of God; to think that children, while children, cannot come to Christ? If I am asked how soon children may become susceptible to the operation of God's grace, I must answer that I do not know at what time they are not. Beware, then, of slighting the spirituality of the child. Who are we, to say that this or that child is too young to come to Christ, seeing that this Holy Book tells us of a Jeremiah who was sanctified, and a John the Baptist who was filled with the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb?

The Welcoming Lord.

The disciples rebuked those that brought them, and were for driving them and their children away; but when Jesus saw it He was moved with indignation—He took it ill, as our old English commentator expresses it, that the Twelve should so entirely misunderstand and ignore His teaching, should act so entirely contrary to every principle He had laid down—and "said unto them, Suffer, permit, the little children to come unto Me; forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of heaven." "Suffer, permit, the little children to come." All sorts of people had in their time made their way into Christ's presence. As Dr. Glover says, Pharisees had come in their bitterness and hate to catch Him in His words: strings of sufferers—the blind, the deaf, the halt, the leprous—had come to Him to be healed; greedy people flocked out to Him because they ate of the loaves, and were filled; pious people pressed upon Him to hear His words of spirit and life; sinful people forced their way into His presence, and fell at His feet, praying that they might be forgiven. But no people ever came into our Lord's presence who were so welcome to Him as these little children. Suffer them to come, He said. And He took them up in His arms, laid His hands upon them, and blessed them.

—The Children's Friend.

Here is our Lord as the children's Friend. The little ones were dear to His heart. "Feed My lambs" was the charge He laid upon the chief of His Apostles. And when He took the little ones up in His arms He took captive every parent's heart. "Remember this, my boy," said Hood Wilson's mother to him, on the day of his ordination, "every time you lay your hand on a child's head, you are laying it on a mother's heart." There is no aspect of the Lord Jesus that appeals with more constraining force to a parent's heart to-day than the sight of Him with the children in His arms.

The Children's Charter.

"For of such is the Kingdom of heaven." What a word was this! I have heard the charter of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children spoken of sometimes as "the Children's Charter." But this is the real Children's Charter. It is this great word of Christ that has given the child his royal place. Here is the child's spiritual rank and heritage. "Of such is the Kingdom of heaven." "Heaven lies about us in our infancy," says Wordsworth; but that is not half so emphatic a statement as this of our Lord—"Of such is the Kingdom of heaven." And this very dictum, which asserted the child's spiritual prerogative, has given him his earthly place of regard and affection and love. When Jesus said, "Of such is the Kingdom of God," He rescued the child from the neglect and contempt with which he was regarded in the ancient world.

The Child and Paganism.

Evidence abounds in the ancient writers to prove how children were neglected and abused. Heathenism had no place in its thought or care for child life. Exposure was a common practice; infanticide was counted no crime. Listen to just two or three extracts from Latin writers. Stobacus says, "The poor man raises his sons, but the daughters, even if one is poor, we expose." Quintillian says that "to kill a man is often held to be a crime, but to kill one's own children is sometimes considered a beautiful action among the Romans." And Seneca writes thus: "Monstrous offspring we destroy; children, too, if weak and improperly formed, we drown. It is not anger, but reason, thus to separate the useless from the sound." In those sentences you get the temper and spirit of the ancient world.

The Child in Christianity.

But Jesus rescued the child, and set him upon high; made him the object of loving regard and care, so that the very tenderest feelings of our present day gather and cluster around our little ones. And this He did by revealing the child's spiritual prerogative. Just as He redeemed the humblest of men from contempt, and broke the shackles of the slave, by revealing the infinite worth of the individual soul in the sight of God; just as He redeemed women from degradation, by revealing her as being, in God's sight, the complement and counterpart of Mark 10:15). It is not a case, as we think sometimes, of the child waiting till he becomes a Ephesians 2:8). "The free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" ( Romans 6:23).

The Restart.

"As a little child"; what regrets the very phrase stirs within us! What would we not give to shake off the defilements, the evil knowledge, the sinful entanglements the years have brought? Is it possible again to become as "a little child"? Yes, it is. "Ye must be born again," said Jesus, and He never gave a command which was not also half a promise. I read in the Old Book of a leprous man who at the command of the prophet of the Lord dipped seven times in Jordan, and his flesh came again, like unto the flesh of a little child. But there is a better fountain than Jordan, in which you and I can wash away the defilements of the years, and become again in soul and spirit like "a little child." "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" ( 1 John 1:7).

Chapter26.
The Rich Young Ruler

"And when He was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but one, that Mark 10:17-22.

The Questioner.

This rich young ruler had come into contact with Jesus before; he must at any rate have heard Him preach, and have been profoundly impressed by Him. Mr. David Smith suggests that he may have been in the synagogue in Jericho, some three months before, when a certain scribe stood up, and, tempting Jesus, asked this very same question, "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" He had heard our Lord's controversy with that scribe; he had listened to that exquisite parable of the Good Samaritan, and the arrow of conviction had entered his soul. For three months he had been, as the old Puritans would say, "under concern." For three months he had been unhappy in his mind. He could bear the suspense and unhappiness no longer, so when Jesus was resuming His southward journey he ran forth and kneeled to Him, and asked Him, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" ( Mark 10:17).

—His Spirit.

It was the very same question that the scribe had asked in Jericho; yet in what a different spirit it was asked. The scribe did not ask the question because he really wanted to know; he asked simply because he thought that this question might put Jesus in a corner. This young ruler asked it because it was the one thing above everything else he wanted to know, and felt he must know. You know that difference of temper and spirit. It is not unfamiliar in our own days.

—His Circumstances.

All this comes out in the minute little touches of Mark's narrative. To begin with, it needed a great deal of courage and resolution to make this young ruler come at all. He was a man of some wealth—all the Evangelists make a point of that; he was also, according to St Luke's account, a "ruler," i.e. probably a ruler of the synagogue. He was a young Mark 10:17). And when he reached the Lord, regardless of all the proprieties, and careless of the scowls and frowns of his friends, he flung himself upon his knees in the dust before Him. "There ran one to Him, and kneeled to Him." Other rich men who felt the influence of Jesus, appear in frank and open courage to come far behind this young man. I cannot imagine Joseph of Arimathea bending the knee to Jesus in a public place. Joseph thought of his "honourable counsellorship," and kept his discipleship secret, for fear of the Jews. I cannot imagine Nicodemus doing this. Nicodemus believed that Jesus was a teacher sent from God. But he never said so openly. He too thought of his position and his reputation. I cannot imagine Nicodemus falling on his knees before Jesus in the public street, and calling Him "Good Master" in the ears of men. Nicodemus preferred to do his homage to Christ "secretly by night." But this young ruler cast all considerations of precedence to the wind. He risked his reputation. He risked the goodwill of his friends. It was vital that he should know the secret of eternal life, so down in the dust he went at the Lord's feet, braving all the shrugs and the jeers of the onlookers, crying out, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"

His Sense of Need.

With all his courage and reverence for the Lord, the young ruler had a passionate desire to have his question answered, and to know the way of life. He was conscious of his need. He was keenly alive to the fact that he lacked something. He had kept the commandments, as he subsequently told Jesus. He had lived a blameless life. There was not a smirch or stain upon his character. Touching the righteousness which was in the law, he was blameless. And yet he was unsatisfied; his soul had no rest. He was like Paul in his Pharisee days, laboriously and punctiliously performing every legal duty, and yet finding out there was no righteousness by the works of the law, ready, although he had kept all the commandments from his youth, to cry, "Wretched man that I Matthew 12:20). But when I turn to the narrative I find Christ dealing coldly, harshly, almost sternly with this young ruler. Why was it? There is only one answer. Christ had a way of encouraging the weak and timid, and of checking the forward and impulsive, by confronting them with the stern facts, with the realism of the Christian life. As in the case of the scribe who wanted to follow Christ, to whom Christ said sharply almost, "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of man hath not where to lay His head." And perhaps there was something superficial and facile about this young ruler; at any rate, Christ Jesus meets his impassioned inquiry with a preliminary objection. He said, "Why callest Thou Me good? none is good save one, even God" ( Mark 10:18).

The Young Man questioned.

Controversy has raged about this sentence. The Socinian interprets it to mean that Christ disclaims the epithet "good," and argues from it that He totally disclaims any idea of being put on an equality with God. But that quite clearly cannot be the meaning of the sentence. For, according to that interpretation, it would amount to a denial not simply of Christ's divinity, but of His goodness as well. And, as we know from the whole tenor of the Gospels, Christ knew Himself holy, harmless, undefiled. This is certainly no confession of imperfection. Nor is it simply a rebuke to the young ruler for using a word without meaning it. Apparently the purpose of the question was to drive this young ruler back upon his foundations, to make him investigate his own half-formed beliefs, face the issues of his own confession. "You have called me "good,"" He says. "Consider what your language means. "Good" is a title which belongs to God. You have given it to Me. Do you really mean it?" Far from being a repudiation of sinlessness, and a disclaimer of Divinity, rightly interpreted this question becomes a challenge and a claim.

The Young Man answered.

And then our Lord proceeds to answer the young ruler's question. He refers him to the law of Moses. "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honour thy father and mother" ( Mark 10:19). The answer was a grievous disappointment to the inquirer. For all these commandments he had punctiliously and painfully obeyed, thinking thereby to attain to peace. Sadly and wearily, therefore, he replied, "All these things have I observed from my youth. What lack I yet?" ( Matthew 19:20). He knew there was something lacking. Spite of all his scrupulosity and punctiliousness, his heart was a stranger to peace and joy. The eternal life, the Divine life, the life he felt Jesus had, was not his. "What," he cried, "lack I yet?"

The Inexorable Demand.

And as the Lord looked at him, so earnest and appealing, His heart was touched. "He loved him," Mark says. Or it may possibly mean that He "kissed him." This young Mark 10:21). Now we must be careful in our interpretation of this demand of our Lord. It does not mean that every one who wants to lay hold on the eternal life must sell all his goods and give to the poor; it is not a general condition, but a demand made to meet the young ruler's case. Our Lord, like a skilful physician, diagnosed the disease before prescribing the remedy. He saw that this young ruler was suffering from a "divided heart" It wavered between love of God and love of gold. And there is never any peace for a divided heart; only war and strife and misery. "Sell whatsoever thou hast," Christ said to this young ruler, "and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven." In other words, He asked him to surrender to God an undivided heart.

—Made of us also.

That is what God asks of us—not the punctilious observance of external rites and ceremonies, but a surrendered heart. Thus alone are life and peace to be gained; not by the works of the law, but by the surrendered heart. Have we learned the lesson? I look around, and see much laboured "keeping of the commandments": a careful and exact obedience given to the moral law: a punctilious observance of the externals of religion. Yet people are not at rest. No; and they never will be along those lines alone. The experience of this young ruler, the experience of Paul himself, only illustrates the truth of the Apostle's saying, "By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" ( Galatians 2:16). Peace only comes by way of a consecrated and surrendered heart.

The Great Refusal.

"Sell that thou hast, and give to the poor," said our Lord. But the demand was too much for the young ruler. He who, in his enthusiasm and eagerness, came "running" to Christ, went away with a face like a "lowering" sky, which forebodes "foul weather"; for he had "great possessions," and for those "great possessions" he sacrificed his Lord. Granted, it was a stringent demand. And yet the demand carried its compensations along with it. "Sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor," said Jesus, "and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow Me." The compensation outbalanced the sacrifice, for there was the blessed company of Jesus all the way; the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled at the last. But he clung to his gold, and sacrificed the company of Jesus, and the internal inheritance. "He went away sorrowful."

The Last View.

Some people find it hard to believe that so promising a young John 6:68).

Chapter27.
Christ's Teaching About Wealth

"And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto His disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the Kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at His words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the Kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible."— Mark 10:23-27.

Why the Lesson was given.

The conversation here given followed immediately upon the incident of the rich young ruler, and was indeed suggested by it. The departure of the young ruler was the text, and these verses were the sermon Christ preached upon it. Or, if you like to put it in a slightly different way, in the preceding paragraph you have the story; in this paragraph Christ points the moral. The departure of the young ruler showed how fierce and strong are the foes that come between a man and eternal life. There Mark 10:23).

The Lord's Look and Words.

"He looked round about"; withdrawing His gaze from the retreating figure of the young ruler, he turned it upon the Twelve. He knew that the love of money, which had caused the young ruler to make the "great refusal," was already doing its deadly work in Judas" soul. And perhaps it was on Judas" face the eyes of the Lord rested, as it was to Judas" heart and conscience that He spoke, when He said, How hardly—with what difficulty—shall they who have the good things of life enter into the Kingdom of God?

The Disciples" Amazement

"And the disciples," we read, "were amazed at His words" ( Mark 10:24). They destroyed every notion about wealth the disciples had ever cherished. They had been brought up on the Old Testament; and there wealth is repeatedly spoken of as a sign of God's favour. So the Wise Man says of Proverbs 3:16). Thus Christ's dictum overturned all their inherited ideas. They themselves were looking forward to material rewards—to princedoms and dominions and thrones. And here Christ declares that that very thing which they had been taught to desire, and to regard as a proof of the Divine favour, was not a blessing, but something like a curse; not a help, but a hindrance, an almost insurmountable obstacle to the possession of the Kingdom. And here I prefer the reading noted in the Revised Version margin, which omits the words "those that trust in riches." According to the oldest MSS, what Jesus said when He saw the bewilderment His first remark had caused, was this, "Children, how hard it is to enter the Kingdom of God!" He enlarges His field of vision. He makes His first statement, "Children—you notice the tenderness of His address—"I said a moment ago, it is hard for the rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. It is hard for every one. There are barriers in every one's way. It is a strait gate and a narrow way for all. But it is specially hard for the rich. It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

The Camel and the Needle's Eye.

Attempts have been made to soften this figure of the camel and the needle's eye. Some have suggested that the word "camel" in the Greek is a mistake for "cable." And others, accepting "camel" as correct, have suggested that the "needle's eye" is to be understood as a small side-gate near the great gate in Jerusalem. But the phrase must be accepted just as it stands. It is exactly the kind of striking, hyperbolical figure in which an Eastern speaker would delight. Southey caught its spirit when he wrote:—

"I would ride the camel,

Yea, leap him flying, through the needle's eye,

As easily as such a pampered soul

Could pass the narrow gate."

It is a proverbial expression, meant to represent vividly and memorably the extraordinary difficulty of discharging the responsibilities and overcoming the temptations of riches. So the Lord's answer to the disciples" wonder was simply to emphasize His former statement.

The Difference God makes.

The Lord's repetition of His statement only intensified the disciples" amazement. "They were astonished exceedingly," saying unto Him, "Then who can be saved?" They began to be dimly conscious of difficulties of which they had never before dreamed. Their minds had travelled beyond the cares of the rich. A new conception of the Kingdom began to dawn upon them. They began to tremble about any one's salvation. "Who then can be saved?" they asked. And Jesus replied, "With men it is impossible, but not with God" ( Mark 10:27). If it depended upon men themselves, their own unaided efforts, their own righteousness, they would never gain the Kingdom. But with God all things are possible. With God to help, the impossible may become actual, and Mark 10:25).

Men absorbed in Wealth.

Now can we discover what, according to our Lord, are the perils of wealth that make Him so insistent in His warnings against it? I think we can. (1) First of all, our Lord saw that wealth had a strange but fatal power of absorbing the affections of the soul, and so becoming the rival and antagonist of God. That is what had happened in the case of this young ruler. God claims the first place in every soul. He will not take the second place; He will be loved best, or not at all. I dare say the young ruler thought he loved God best. But when the choice had to be made, it was his gold he loved best. He did not possess his riches, his riches possessed him. They had monopolised God's place. Living as we do in a materialistic age, we do not need any one to tell us that there are multitudes of mammon-worshippers all about us still, men who give to wealth the place in their hearts that properly belongs to God.

Men trusting in Wealth.

(2) A second peril which Christ saw attached to wealth was this—those who had great possessions were always tempted to trust in them. Money has not only the power of absorbing the heart, it has also the power of satisfying it. Take the parable of the Rich Fool as an illustration. His barns and storehouses were full; he seemed quite immune against trouble and distress. "Soul, thou hast much goods," he said, "laid up for many years, eat, drink, be merry." The fact that he had such abundant wealth blinded him to his lack of spiritual things. He thought himself rich and increased with goods, and in need of nothing, and when he was ushered into eternity that night, he went into it as a blind and miserable and naked soul. This is no imaginary peril. The possession of earthly wealth may blind a man to his need of lasting riches. The man who has much treasure on earth is in danger of not feeling the need of treasure in heaven. And so the possession of "uncertain riches" often spells the ruin of the soul; and "great possessions" often mean the sacrifice of the inheritance incorruptible and undefiled. For the condition of receiving the "eternal life" is a sense of need. "He hath filled the hungry with good things." But those who have this world's goods often feel no sense of need, and so the rich go empty away. What profit is it for a man to have all his treasures on earth, when he himself is made for eternity? "Do you know," said a man—I think to John Bright—"he died worth a million." "Yes," replied Bright, "and that was all he was worth." What unutterable tragedy such a sentence hides! "All he was worth." And it had all to be left.

Men the Prey of Covetousness.

(3) Further, the possession of wealth is apt to beget a spirit of covetousness, and covetousness, is itself a sin, and the fruitful mother of sins. "Take heed," said our Lord, "and keep yourselves from covetousness." Covetousness, He knew, was one of the most deadly enemies of the soul. It warps and shrivels and deadens the soul. It makes it insensible to the higher and holier appeals. Men grow in fortune, and get further and further away from God. Their bank balances increase, and their stock of sympathy and pity and love diminishes. There is nothing like covetousness for stifling the religious life. It chokes the Word, so that there is more hope for the drunkard and the sensualist than for the man whom avarice holds in its grip. And not only is covetousness itself a sin, but it begets sin. "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil," says the Apostle ( 1 Timothy 6:10). It was so in the Lord's own day. Witness the Pharisees devouring widows" houses, and the priests turning the very Temple into a den of thieves. It is so now. Think what greed is doing in this land of ours. Most of the wrongs from which we suffer spring from this one bitter root. There would be scarcely any social problem left, if only men's hearts were delivered from this blighting and sinful love.

The Christian's Duty.

What, then, is the Christian man's attitude towards wealth? Wealth, remember, is a relative term. I have known the small patrimony of the poor as perilous to the soul as the mighty fortunes of the rich. Covetousness is not necessarily a matter of thousands or millions. Silas Marner with his small store of gold coins was as much a victim to it as any financier who is adding his thousand to thousand. What, then, is the Christian's duty towards his wealth, whether it be great or small? Must he deny himself of it? Not necessarily. But he must keep himself master of it. He must not let it master him. I have a friend who said to me that when he was about twenty-five years of age, when money began to come to him, he found he had to face the question whether he would be master of his wealth, or would let his wealth master him. He said that by God's grace he would be master of his wealth. It was no vain resolve; he holds his money with a loose grip; it is to him an agent for usefulness. He gives, as he puts it, pound for pound of his income to the Lord. He has made to himself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness. That is the way to treat wealth, whether large or small—be its master. And with none of us must wealth be the aim of life. "Little children, guard yourselves from idols" ( 1 John 5:21). It is the last word of Scripture. And mammon is the idol most of our people worship. But the new earth would be here, if we seriously heeded these words of Christ, "Be not therefore anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?... But seek ye first His Kingdom and His righteousness" ( Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:33).

Chapter28.
The Hundredfold

"Then Peter began to say unto Him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed Thee. And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for My sake, and the gospel"s, but he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life. But many that are first shall be last; and the last first."— Mark 10:28-31.

The Impulsive Peter.

All the Evangelists notice that it was Peter who said this. It was just the kind of remark you would expect Peter to make. There were things Peter said which, on calmer reflection, he would have wished unsaid. But this habit nevertheless constitutes part of the charm of his character. His hot-headedness and impulsiveness make him the most open and transparent and human of the Twelve.

His Inquiry.

His question here arose directly out of the incident of the rich young ruler. He had heard our Lord demand of that young man that he should sell his possessions, and follow Him. He had seen the young ruler go away sorrowful. He had heard the Lord's startling comment that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. And though for a moment, like the rest of the disciples, staggered by that austere saying, he quickly recovered his spirits, and with a great deal of self-satisfaction let his mind dwell on the difference between the conduct of the rich young ruler and that of himself and his fellow disciples. "We," he thought to himself, "have done the very thing which the Master asked the rich young ruler to do. We have done that hard thing; we have left all, and followed Jesus. Surely sacrifice so great and so difficult will win a rich reward?" The thought had no sooner formed itself in Peter's mind than, with characteristic impulsiveness, he was giving it expression. "Lo," he said to Jesus, "we (with an emphasis on the we: we, in contrast to the rich young ruler who refused to make the sacrifice), we have left all, and have followed Thee" ( Mark 10:28). And Peter did not stop there, according to Matthew's account, for he went on to ask, "What then shall we have?" ( Matthew 19:27).

Peter's Sacrifice

It is very easy to criticise this question of Peter. For, when Peter asked, "What then shall we have?" he spoke in the very tone and temper of the hired servant. There is a touch of the sordid and the mercenary about it. "No longer do I call you servants," said Jesus on one occasion; "but I have called you friends" ( John 15:15). But Peter here does not speak as a "friend"; he speaks as one who only works for wages, a "hired servant," and as one eminently pleased with himself. But when critics go on to object that Peter's all did not amount to much, that in his case there was no such sacrifice as was demanded in the case of the young ruler, they take a very different view of the case from that which Christ took. I do not find Christ ridiculing or disparaging the sacrifice the disciples had made, as scarcely worth mention. Christ never measured anything by mere bulk; He measures by the love and sacrifice involved. And so He joyfully acknowledged that these men had sacrificed their all, and, with a "verily" that was full of tender assurance, He promised them a reward that outran their wildest dreams.

The Master's Response.

To the Twelve themselves, according to Matthew's account, He promised that they should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Peter, for the sacrifice of his boat and his nets, Mark 10:29-30).

The Divine Generosity.

In this overwhelming promise you will notice the Divine generosity of the reward. That is the way in which the Lord blesses—a hundredfold. This is the way in which He compensates for sacrifice—a hundredfold. The very magnificence of the reward has, as Dr. Bruce says, a sobering effect upon the mind. It tends to humble. For nobody, no matter what sacrifices he has made, or what devotion he has shown, can pretend that he has earned the "hundredfold." All talk of merit is out of the question here. When we have done our best—if we are honest with ourselves—we have to confess we have been unprofitable servants. The reward is so obviously out of proportion, as to make us realize it is not of debt, but of the Lord's mercy and grace. We do not earn these blessings; the free gift of God is eternal life.

The Doctrine of Rewards.

There are those in these days who say that in the Christian life we ought not to think of reward at all. Christianity, we are told, ought to be disinterested, and the man who is always thinking of the reward at the end is really turning his religion into a kind of glorified selfishness. Now there is an element of truth in this objection. If people were Christian simply for the sake of the reward, and not for love, they would not in any true sense be Christians at all. I sometimes wonder whether Peter was a real Christian, when he asked, "What then shall we get?" I am quite sure he was a real Christian when he said, "Lord, Thou knowest all things, Thou knowest that I love Thee." Our Lord Himself repudiated what I may call mercenary discipleship, when He charged the crowds with following Him only because they ate of the loaves, and were filled. A Christian is a man who follows Christ and obeys Christ and gives Himself to Christ for love's sake. But Christ never calls a man to an unreasonable service. The life Christ calls a man to, is the best life and the highest life, the rich life. And that is what the Christian doctrine of rewards amounts to; it is the assertion of the supreme reasonableness of the Christian life.

The Reality of the Reward.

But now as to the reality of this reward. It is an overwhelming promise—is it a true one? This promise of a hundredfold now and eternal life hereafter, is it a mocking mirage, or is it a reality? Let us examine the promise for a moment. It falls into two parts. It promises reward now, and in the world to come. Now as to the promise of eternal life in the world to come, we have to take that on trust. We believe, we gladly believe, that for Christ's friends death does not bring life to an end. But life enters upon a new stage. It becomes larger, deeper, richer, fuller. It becomes life in the very presence of God, a life of perfect bliss. But that, as I say, we take on trust. As far as that portion of the promise is concerned, we walk by faith, not by sight.

The Promise of the Life that now is.

But in so far as the Lord's promise deals with this present world and this present life, we can bring it to the test of facts and experience. What then of the hundredfold which they who make sacrifices for Christ are to receive in this time? Does that get fulfilled? In answering this question we must beware of a bald literalism. A bald and naked literalism will make nonsense of this gracious word. Of course, Christ does not mean that for every house we give up we shall get a hundred houses given back to us. The promise essentially means this—that discipleship means the immense and untold enrichment of life even now. Is that true? Absolutely and utterly true. It is true even of material things. Religion tends to prosperity. Godliness has the promise of the life which now is. But it is not on that low and rather sordid plane that I would argue the truth of this promise. The hundredfold comes to the disciple in other and better ways. "A hundredfold in this time." Is it true? Yes, says Dr. Bruce, if you take the long view; and he bids us notice how, through the sacrifices of Christian people, the little one has become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation, and the prophetic picture of an ever-widening Christian dominion has been to a large extent realised. But essentially the promise is true, not simply of the centuries and the generations; it is true of the individual. The Christian life means untold enlargement and enrichment. "All things are yours," cries Paul; "whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours, and ye are Christ"s" ( 1 Corinthians 3:22-23). "I have all things, and abound," wrote the same great hearted Apostle ( Philippians 4:18). He had stripped himself bare for Christ; he had stripped himself of home and friends and reputation and prospects; but Paul did not walk through life like a beggar, he walked through it with the proud step and light heart of one who had inexhaustible and unsearchable riches. "I have all things, and abound."

—With Persecution.

"With persecutions," the Lord adds. And we are not to read this phrase as if it were the bitter put in to counterbalance the sweet. The Lord means us to reckon persecutions as another item added to the inventory of the disciple's blessings. The hundredfold is realised, not in spite of persecutions, but to a larger extent because of them. The phrase carries us back to that other striking and memorable word, "Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for My sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven" ( Matthew 5:11-12). "But," He added, "many that are first shall be last, and the last first." A man's place in the Divine order of precedence is not settled by length of service or conspicuous service. These twelve were the first in time, and the most conspicuous in position. It did not follow that they were to be the first in heaven. Judas by transgression fell, and went to his own place—the first became last. The persecuting and blaspheming Saul, though born out of due time, came not a whit behind the very chiefest of the Apostles—the last became first. In the external world every man finds his proper niche; every man is appraised at his true value. For God judges not by the outward appearance; He judges by the heart. Not by our conspicuous station, or by our Church standing, but by the amount of genuine love and sacrifice there is in our discipleship. "Many that are first shall be last"; it is a word of solemn warning. It is well we should examine our hearts, and ask ourselves where, judged by that test, shall we stand—amongst the first or amongst the last?

Note

The quotations at the head of Chapters are from the Authorised Version. Quotations in the body of the Commentary are mainly from the Revised Version.

Chapter1.
On the Way to Jerusalem

"And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid. And He took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto Him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn Him to death, and shall deliver Him to the Gentiles: and they shall mock Him, and shall scourge Him, and shall spit upon Him, and shall kill Him: and the third day He shall rise again."— Mark 10:32-34.

The Sequence of Events.

A word as to the exact chronological position of this journey to Jerusalem. Mark's Luke 2:49). "I am come down from heaven," He said to the multitude, "not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me" ( John 6:38). "We must work the works of Him that sent Me," He said on another occasion, "while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work" ( John 9:4). All through His life Christ submitted Himself absolutely and without reserve to the Father's will. He spoke the words the Father gave Him to speak. He did the works His Father gave Him to do. And there was no limit to His obedience. He shrank from no sacrifice or pain. He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

The Heroic Christ.

What a glimpse, too, we have here of the heroic Christ! He knew to what He was going. Not one item in the bitter tragedy of the garden and the judgment hall and the cross escaped Him. And yet deliberately and willingly He faced it all. The courage of the soldier on the battlefield—wonderful as it often is—pales beside the courage, the majestic and overwhelming courage, of the Son of God marching to the cross. The soldier faces wounds and death, but can always hope to escape them. There was no escape for Jesus. It was to death He marched, to a cruel death, to a shameful and bitter death, and yet He never hesitated or blenched. He steadfastly set His face, says St Luke 12:50). "How am I straitened!" There was a sense of urgency and pressure about our Lord's whole life; that urgency and pressure you see in His march to the cross. It was not the haste of fear. It was not the haste of a man anxious to get as quickly as possible over an ordeal from which he shrinks. Light is thrown upon this eagerness of our Lord, in Hebrews 12:2). It was not a timid and shrinking and nervous haste; it was a glad and triumphant haste. He did not march in front as one who was broken or dismayed, else His disciples would have drawn near to comfort Him. He walked majestic.

That is the Christ we see in this incident—the obedient Christ, the courageous Christ, the eager Christ, and the loving and sacrificial Christ. For why did He hasten to the cross? "All," as our old hymn puts it, "All to ransom guilty captives." All for love! "He loved me, and gave Himself for me." Well may we go on to say, "Flow, my praise, for ever flow."

The Amazed Twelve.

But I pass now from talking of the Christ revealed in this incident, to say just a word about the picture of the disciples we get here. The Twelve were "amazed," we read. Christ was continually giving them things to "wonder" at. When He gave utterance to that hard saying about the rich man and the Kingdom of God, the disciples, we learn, were amazed (it is the very same word). Their surprise then was at the Lord's speech; their surprise now is at the Lord Himself. It was at the staggering nature of His sayings, they wondered in Mark 10:24; it is at the majesty of His Person they wonder here. And what perennial sources of wonder those two are! The Lord's words constantly fill us with surprise. They are so fresh, so deep, so inexhaustible. Like those who first heard them, we are always "astonished" at His teaching. And the wonder of His Person surpasses even the wonder of His words. Christ is greater than His speech. As we study His life, some new revelation of His love, or Judges 8:4). You remember where it occurs. After Gideon and his three hundred had surprised the host of Midian by their night attack, the work of pursuit began. They allowed their foes no chance to Acts 21:13). They were not men of the dauntless spirit of Martin Luther, who, when his friends warned him of danger if he persisted in going to Worms, replied that though there were as many devils in Worms as there were tiles upon the housetops, yet would he go. Dr Glover compares these men to John Bunyan, who, though he had just married a second time, and had a little blind daughter dependent upon him, and though he knew that a warrant was issued for his arrest if he should persist in preaching the Gospel, went to keep his engagement at the little village of Samsell. His wife, his blind daughter, his own liberty—John Bunyan risked them all in his loyalty to Christ.

—But like Mr Fearing.

But my own feeling is that these people find their real representative, not in John Bunyan himself, but in that Mr Fearing whom John Bunyan pictures for us with such inimitable felicity. You remember all about Mr Fearing—a man made up of doubts and timidities. For about a month, the Dreamer tells us, he lay roaring at the Slough of Despond, not venturing to cross it, yet equally determined that he would not go back. And when he came to the wicket gate, there he stood shaking and shrinking, letting many another pass in before him, before he dared raise the hammer and give a timid knock. So it was also at Interpreter's door. He lay about in the cold a good while before he would adventure to call; yet he would not go back, "though the nights were long and cold then." He was compact of timidities and fears, yet he would not go back. He was faint; yet he continued to pursue. He was afraid; but he followed. And Mr Fearing at last won his way into the gates of the Celestial City. This was a crowd of Mr Fearings—as they followed they were afraid.

They were afraid, but they followed. I find comfort in the thought that these men who followed Christ on His last journey were not strangers to fear. It brings them all very near to us. For most of us are much more like Mr Fearing and Mr Ready-to-Halt than we are like Mr Greatheart and Mr Valiant-for-Truth. "Fightings without and fears within" that is our condition. We, too, are full of timidities and hesitations. And yet, fears and all, let us follow. Faint though we are, let us pursue. Like Mr Fearing and Mr Ready-to-Halt, we shall win home at the last.

Made Bold by Jesus Christ.

"As they followed, they were afraid." And what was it kept them following, in spite of their fears? It was the influence of Jesus upon them. As they looked at Him, they were constrained to follow, though they were afraid. Here is the courage of Jesus, says one of the commentators, overcoming fear in the disciples. "Consider Him," says the writer of the Epistle to the Mark 10:33-34). It was not to a throne He was marching; still His ultimate triumph was sure. For while He spoke of death He also spoke of "rising again." But what lay immediately in front of Him was rejection, insult, and a shameful death. The prospect did not appal them. Not one of them drew back, save the son of perdition. They continued with Christ in His temptations. And it is a similar prospect Christ holds out before His followers still. His ultimate triumph is certain. Away yonder there is waiting a palm-branch and a throne. But immediately and now discipleship means tribulation, suffering, sacrifice, and the cross. Shall we draw back? No, though we be afraid, we will follow. Though we be faint, we will pursue. "We are not of them that shrink back unto perdition, but of them that have faith unto the saving of the soul" ( Hebrews 10:39).

Chapter2.
The Sons of Zebedee

"And James and Mark 10:35-40.

A Strange Plea.

—And its Explanation.

I suppose that no one ever reads this paragraph without considering how it came about that the sons of Zebedee could come to Jesus with so ambitious and selfish a prayer at this particular juncture. Jesus had just told them in plain and unmistakable language that He was going to be rejected, mocked, spat upon, scourged, killed; and these two disciples chose that particular moment to plead with Him for thrones. One would have thought that Christ's emphatic announcement would have banished from His disciples" minds this foolish dreaming. To find the explanation you must turn to Luke's Gospel.

Mr Prejudice at work.

This is the comment Luke makes, after narrating our Lord's solemn announcement of His passion: "And they understood none of these things; and this saying was hid from them, and they perceived not the things that were said" ( Luke 18:34). "And they understood none of these things." You wonder why. The announcement was plain and straightforward enough. But in this matter of the cross the disciples were so wholly possessed by their own preconceived notions that they could not and would not take in the warning. You remember how John Bunyan, in his Holy War, puts Ear-gate into the charge of Mr Prejudice, who had sixty completely deaf men under him as his company, men eminently advantageous for that service, inasmuch as it mattered not one atom to them what was spoken in their ear either by God or man. That is only John Bunyan's picturesque way of saying that prejudice can make men dull and deaf to all warnings and appeals. Mr Prejudice and his sixty deaf men were, let us say, in charge of the disciples" ears in this matter of the cross. They were so steeped in materialistic notions of Messiah's empire, they were so completely possessed by their belief that Messiah's path ended in an earthly throne, that they closed their ears against every mention of the cross. Christ's words mystified them, no doubt. But they put them down as parables. They obstinately refused to take them in their plain and literal meaning. "They understood none of these things." We must remember all this, otherwise it is inexplicable how James and John should still be dreaming of thrones when Christ was contemplating the cross.

A Contributory Cause.

Probably we should bear in mind this fact also, that only a short time before Christ had worked that most stupendous and overwhelming of His miracles. He had raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the grave four days. It was a sign that filled all who had witnessed it with wonder, and all who heard of it with excited anticipation. Jerusalem and Judæa were stirred from end to end. People began to ask whether any one but the Messiah could work such mighty signs as these. In a word, the people at large were ready to welcome and acclaim Jesus as Messiah, as indeed they did on the occasion of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem. The disciples knew all this. They were conscious of the kind of thrill there was in the air. They felt the throb of the popular expectancy. They made sure, therefore, that on the occasion of this visit to Jerusalem there would be some great apocalypse of our Lord's Messianic dignity and power, and that the Kingdom of God would immediately appear. And Mark 10:35). They wish Jesus to give them a kind of blank cheque. Eastern kings were occasionally wont, in their large and ostentatious way, to promise persons who had won their regard anything they might ask—just as Herod promised Herodias" daughter anything, up to the half of his kingdom. Salome's two sons hoped to be dealt with thus. It was no doubt, as Dr Salmond says, "a large, bold, and inconsiderate demand." But let us do this credit to Salome and her sons—the very boldness of the request shows that they believed that Christ had unlimited power. He wore nothing but the seamless cloak, but to this woman and her sons the seamless cloak could not hide His royal dignity. To them He was even now King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and all things were His to give. It was an inconsiderate, it was a foolish request, but there was faith behind it, a mistaken faith, perhaps, but, nevertheless, a great and magnificent faith.

A Large Request.

—With an Aim.

But Christ was no Eastern despot, bestowing His favours, so to speak, blindfold; and so He replies to the disciples" request with a question, "What would ye that I should do for you?" ( Mark 10:36). He will have them state in definite and specific terms what it is they have in their mind. Perhaps James and John did not quite care to put into words what really was in their hearts. Possibly they felt a trifle ashamed of their own ambitiousness. But Christ, as Dr Morison says, will have these two disciples spread out, under the light of His observation and of their own reflection, what was lying in their hearts. And so they tell Him—or perhaps Salome tells Him for them—what it was they really wanted. "Grant unto us," they said, "that we may sit, one on Thy right hand, and one on Thy left hand, in Thy glory" ( Mark 10:37). The murder was out. What these two men wanted was the highest station in the kingdom. They wanted specially, says Dr A. B. Bruce, "to steal a march on Peter." The primacy seemed to rest between themselves and Peter, for Jesus had obviously chosen out Peter and themselves as leaders among the Twelve. But the words spoken by our Lord to Peter at Cæsarea had rankled in their minds, and had made them fear that amongst the three Peter would be first. So here they try to steal a march on Peter, and beguile their Lord into promising the chief places in the kingdom to themselves. "Grant unto us that we may sit, one on Thy right hand, and one on Thy left hand, in Thy glory."

Its Faults.

Now it is a very easy matter to criticise this request of these two disciples and their mother. Dr A. B. Bruce, in his Training of the Twelve, gives a long catalogue of the faults contained in it. It was a presumptuous request, he says, because it virtually asked Jesus their Lord to become the tool of their ambition and vanity. And it was as ignorant as it was presumptuous, showing that they were poles asunder from their Lord in their thoughts of the kingdom. And it was as selfish as it was ignorant. Their own self-aggrandisement was the burden of it. Yes, this request of the sons of Zebedee was all that. Almost every fault that could attach to a prayer stares us in the face in this brief plea.

The Lord's Reply.

Taking Count of Faith.

—And of Courage.

And of Love.

And yet, our Lord's reply is singularly mild and gentle. There is no indignant denunciation. If there is a tone of rebuke, it is of the kindest and tenderest. Can it be that Jesus saw something beside presumption and ignorance and selfishness in this prayer? Can it be that He saw something which was grateful to His soul? I think He did. And when I look again at this prayer, I can almost guess what it was. "Grant unto us," they said, "that we may sit one on Thy right hand, and one on Thy left hand, in Thy glory." It was a mistaken prayer, it was a foolish prayer. But there was, as I have already said, a superb faith in it. Whatever others might think of Jesus, these two men believed that He deserved the kingdom, and would yet receive it. Do you not think that this would be grateful to the heart of Christ, in view of the "rejection" at the hands of chief priests and scribes which He knew was soon to be His fate? And there was courage in it. Probably they did not understand what Jesus had just told them about the cross. They refused to take it literally. But I daresay they felt there was some sort of a crisis and conflict coming, and so it became a time when the feeble and craven-hearted abandoned Christ. But these men never dreamed of leaving Him. They take that moment of solemn warning to declare that, whatever might be in store, they attached themselves definitely and finally to the cause of Christ. And surely there was more than faith and courage in the prayer; there was also love in it. Here was the thing these two craved above everything else, to be near their Lord. It was not altogether that they wanted to be above Peter and the rest. They wanted to be near Christ. Mark 10:38). A throne is never a comfortable seat. "Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." But never was such a throne as Christ"s. For His throne was the bitter cross. They did not know what suffering and agony they were asking for, in asking for a throne by the side of Christ. It was an ignorant prayer. And of how many of our prayers could not our Lord say, "Ye know not what ye ask?" Especially is that so when we ask for great things for ourselves. We little realise what risks we run, and what a price has to be paid. In our ignorance it Mark 10:39). And this answer, the commentators all unite to tell me, is almost as foolish and ignorant as their original request. "They knew not what they asked," says Dr Glover, "and now they know not what they say." And I suppose the commentators are right. It was a light-hearted and thoughtless answer. They would have spoken far otherwise, says Dr David Smith, "had they known whereto they were pledging themselves, had it been revealed to them that a week later their Lord would be lifted up, not on a throne, but on a cross, with a cross on His right, and a cross on His left. Their love for their Master would surely have kept them faithful; but they would have spoken with faltering lips, and their answer would have been a trembling prayer for strength to drink that bitter cup and endure that bloody baptism." Yes, I believe all that. And yet there was more than ignorance and thoughtlessness in this reply. There was honest purpose in it; there was heroic love in it; there was uttermost consecration in it. These two men felt ready to go anywhere and endure anything, to drink any cup, to be baptized with any baptism, for the Lord's sake. "We are able," they said. And Christ knew that, although they were ignorant of how bitter the cup was, and how bloody the baptism, they would not falter or quail. "The cup that I drink," He said to them, "ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized" ( Mark 10:39, R.V.).

The Ambition Realised.

It all came true. I turn to the book of the Acts of the Apostles, and I read this, "Now about that time Herod the king put forth his hands to afflict certain of the Church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword" ( Acts 12:1-2). That is where James" loyalty and zeal brought him—to a premature and cruel death. First of all the apostolic band he was called to tread the martyr way. And he never faltered or quailed. If the old tradition be true, he went to his death like a conqueror to a triumph, like a king to his crowning; he drank his Lord's cup, and was baptized with his Lord's baptism. I turn to the Revelation i. and I read of Revelation 3:21).

Chapter3.
Greatness in the Kingdom

"And when the ten heard it, they began to be much displeased with James and John. But Jesus called them to Him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: and whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimæus, the son of Timæus, sat by the highway-side begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, Thou son of David, have mercy on me. And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou son of David, have mercy on me."— Mark 10:41-48.

The Attitude of the Jews.

"And when the ten heard it," i.e. heard the request James and John had made for the two chief places in the Kingdom, "they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John" ( Mark 10:41). How they heard it we are not told. Perhaps they overheard it, though that is scarcely likely. James and John were not eager to put their wish into precise and definite terms, even to their Master Himself. They had to be pressed to do it. I do not think they could have been brought to do it at all, if the other ten disciples had been standing by listening to them. The probability is they guessed that the two brothers were asking something for themselves. For when the two with their mother came into the presence of Jesus they took up the attitude of suppliants. They came, says Mark 10:34, you will see He had already given the same lesson once before. The disciples were amazingly slow scholars. It had to be "line upon line and precept upon precept" with them. But, happily, the Master was as patient as the scholars were slow. With amazing condescension He would repeat and repeat the lessons He had to teach. I can understand, as I read the Gospels, why Peter should say that "the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation" ( 2 Peter 3:15). So He repeated the old lesson on the law of greatness. In His Kingdom greatness comes to him who stoops to serve. "Ye know," He says, "that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you; but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister; and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all" ( Mark 10:43-44). The King is the type of greatness in the world; the slave is the type of greatness in the Kingdom.

The World and the Kingdom.

It was the former kind of greatness James and John had asked for. It was the former kind of greatness the ten were keen about. Their idea of greatness was to occupy a high place, and to have multitudes beneath them, serving them. It was a Herod's pomp or a Pilate's state they coveted. But the ideals of the Lord's Kingdom are totally different. It is not the man who has most people serving him, but the man who himself serves the most people, who is greatest there. These disciples by their very self-seeking were really destroying their chances of high place. For not to the man who exalted himself above his fellows, but to the man who stooped to serve them would the chief place go.

Greatness by Service.

Have we learned the lesson? Greatness out in the world is often a matter of the accident of birth. High place is for some hereditary, going to those who have never occupied a servile position, but have always been served. I do not know that Jesus means here to criticise this arrangement. There are advantages in hereditary rank, and it seems almost inevitable that it should be marked by a certain amount of parade and state. All that Jesus is doing here is to say that greatness in His Kingdom is of an entirely different kind, and is won by different methods. Greatness in the eternal Kingdom is not a matter of rank or birth or favour; it is a matter of service. It cannot be inherited; it must be deserved. It cannot be bestowed as a favour; it must be won. And the mark of the great man in the Kingdom is not that he has multitudes of people waiting upon his beck and nod, but that he himself is everybody's minister and servant. We recognise this in the case of others; but the vital question Matthew 25:35-36). Are we busy in this holy service? Do we visit the sick, and feed the hungry, and befriend the stranger? Earthly rank is beyond the reach of most of us. But we may all of us, if we will, become great in the eternal Kingdom. The motto of our Prince of Wales is Ich dien—I serve. That motto indicates the way to princely rank in the Kingdom of God. "Whosoever would be first shall be servant of all."

The Example of Christ.

Our Lord enforces His teaching by an appeal to His own example. "For verily the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" ( Mark 10:45). Let us look at the first statement. "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister." There are two ideas here. (1) There John 13:14).

The Way to His Kingdom.

(2) There Philippians 2:8-9). That is it. He became "servant of all," and He is now the first of all. And that is the way to greatness for the disciple as well as the Master. There is no other path for us to the throne and the Kingdom, save the path He trod. No cross, no crown. But if we suffer with Him and serve with Him, we shall also be glorified together.

The Ransom.

And now I pass on to dwell for a moment on the last clause in this great verse. "The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for many" ( Mark 10:45). "A ransom for many." "This great saying," remarks Dr David Smith, "has a priceless value." "It is only a metaphor," he says further, "but it expresses a truth which is the very heart of the Gospel, and without which there is no Gospel at all." Let us examine the saying, to discover if we can what is the truth which constitutes the Gospel which it expresses. All hangs on the meaning we attach to that word "ransom." What idea would the word "ransom" suggest to the disciples who heard Christ use it? Dr A. B. Bruce suggests that it would at once bring to their minds the half-shekel which every adult Jew paid into the Temple Treasury at Passion time, "a ransom for his soul unto the Lord." But Dr David Smith contends, and Dr Morison agrees with him, that it would inevitably suggest to the minds of the disciples another idea as well, viz. the price of deliverance paid for the redemption of captives. But, whichever explanation we prefer, the essential point remains the same. Our Lord represents His life as laid down in order to win redemption for many. It is a life given "instead of" many. And that life so given is the redemption price that sets the many free. Christ thinks of men as bond-slaves under sin; exposed to the doom and penalty of sin. And by His own death somehow or other He delivers men from this doom; He opens the way for a new relation to God, so that men are no longer criminals, but sons of God and heirs of eternal life.

The Doctrine and the Gospels.

It is said that there is no suggestion of a doctrine of the Atonement in the Gospels; that the doctrine of the Atonement as we know it is the result of apostolic and especially Pauline philosophising about the death of Jesus. It is true that in the Gospels you get no elaborated and articulated doctrine of the cross. That is not surprising. Christ had to die before the meaning of His death could be understood and explained. But, unless you wipe out sayings like these, it is simply untrue to say that Atonement is an invention of the Apostles. All that Paul says, and all that Peter says, and all that John says, is implied in a saying like this. For if the passage means anything at all, it means vicarious suffering. When John said, "Unto Him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by His blood" ( Revelation 1:5), he is only repeating what Jesus Himself says here. When Peter said, "redeemed, not with corruptible things, as silver or gold... but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot" ( 1 Peter 1:18-19), he is only repeating what Jesus Himself says here. And when Paul says, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" ( Galatians 3:13), he is only repeating what Jesus Himself says here. He bought our freedom and our life by the sacrifice of His own. That was the object of His coming. People speculate as to whether Christ would have come into our world, had there been no sin. I do not know. All that I do know Mark 10:46-52.

The Accounts of the Miracle.

—How Reconciled.

The Value of Divergencies.

I shall not discuss the differences between the various accounts the three Evangelists give of this particular incident. No two of them tell the story in exactly the same way. Matthew and Mark 10:47).

And "Jesus of Nazareth."

Now, something must be assumed, in order to understand this cry. Bartimus must have heard of Jesus. And he must have heard also of His mighty works. Remember once again that, only a short time before, Christ had performed the mightiest of all His miracles, in raising Lazarus from the dead after he had been in the grave four days. That miracle had put all Juda into a ferment of excitement. News of it had no doubt reached Jericho, and had come amongst others to the ears of Bartimus. It had stirred hope within him. It had made him long that the same Jesus would come his way; for the Jesus who could raise a dead man to life could, he argued, restore sight again to his blind eyes. And now that very Jesus was actually passing, the Jesus who had raised Lazarus, the Jesus into whose presence he had longed to come.

The Blind Man and his Opportunity.

Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. It was the opportunity he had longed for, but scarcely hoped ever to obtain. Quick as a flash the prayer leaped to his lips, "Jesus, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me." And that is the first thing I want you to notice about Bartimus, that he was a man who recognised his opportunity and seized it. Bartimus was, as Dr Glover says, like those wise virgins whom our Lord speaks of in His parable. As soon as ever the cry is made that the bridegroom cometh, he trims his lamp of prayer and faith, and goes out to meet Him. He is like those servants who, when their Lord cometh, are found watching. He had often thought of Jesus; often prayed in his heart that Jesus might pass his way; and Mark 10:32, filled those who followed Him with wonder and awe. They felt that Christ had great concerns and cares of His own. And Mark 10:48). Bartimus" faith was a faith that bore up and pressed on, and persevered. And that is the kind of faith that wins the blessing. There are plenty of voices to bid us hold our peace when we cry to Christ. Worldly Mends laugh at us. Commonsense says that it is useless. A guilty conscience urges that it is impossible that Christ should notice us. We need the faith that can bear up against all these things. We shall reap in due season, if we faint not! You remember how John Bunyan stuck to his praying, in spite of sore temptation. This is how he describes his own experience, "Then the Tempter laid at me very sore, suggesting that neither the mercy of God, nor yet the blood of Christ, did at all concern me, therefore it was but in vain to pray. "Yet," thought I, "I will pray." "But," said the Tempter, "your sin is unpardonable." "Well," said I, "I will pray." "It is to no boot," said he. "Yet," said I, "I will pray." And so I went to prayer to God. And as I was thus before the Lord, that Scripture fastened on my heart. "O Mark 10:51). And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight" ( Mark 10:52). Nearly every sentence in this colloquy suggests thought. But I pass everything by, just to say that here we see faith triumphant. Here we see prayer answered. Is any true, deep, earnest prayer ever unanswered? "Thou satisfiest the desire of every living thing," says the Psalmist (cxlv16). "Every one that asketh receiveth," says our Lord ( Matthew 7:8), "and he that seeketh, findeth." So let us, as Dr Glover says, sow the seeds of prayer on the heart of God. There is no hard ground, or rocky soil, or thorny ground there. His heart is the good soil of tender and gracious love. Let us scatter the seed of prayer, and we shall get a harvest of blessing. According to our faith it shall be unto us.

The Man of Loyal Obedience.

A final word about the end of Bartimæus" history—And he "followed Him in the way" ( Mark 10:52).

One of the greatest sorrows of our Lord's life was that so many took His benefits without giving Him their hearts. "Were there not ten cleansed?" He asked one day. "Where are the nine?" They had accepted His gift, they neglected the Giver. He healed numbers of sick folk and leprous folk, and blind folk and lame folk, and palsied folk, during the years of His brief ministry. Where were they all, when Jerusalem rang with the cry, "Crucify Him"? Apparently there was not one grateful enough to lift up his voice on His behalf. But, however disappointed Christ may have been in others, He was not disappointed in Bartimus; for this was the use Bartimus made of his new found sight, "he followed Him in the way." He did not go home to his friends, he clung to Him Who had healed and saved him, "he followed Him in the way." His experience of Christ's mercy was followed by a life of obedience.

Is that Obedience Ours?

We too have experienced the saving mercy of Christ; are we following in the way? How many there are who receive Christ's benefits yet neglect Him still! Are we amongst them? "Happy," says Bishop Chadwick, "is the man whose eyes are open to discern and his heart prompt to follow the print of those holy feet." And so Jericho was kind to Christ. Jericho gave two new disciples to Christ. At the time when others were turning their backs upon Him, two men—Zacchæus, the chief publican, and Bartimæus—gave their hearts to Him as He trod the way that led to the cross. Are we also with them and following Him in the way?